Those who vehemently oppose abortion steadfastly claim that abortion is “murder.” They want to make it illegal for any woman to have an abortion.
Therefore, it seems fair to ask anti-abortionists a simple hypothetical question. Assume that we changed the law and that all abortions were illegal. Under that scenario, how would you punish women who committed “murder” by having abortions?”
What do you get when you combine a camcorder, a simple question and a group of fervent anti-abortionists? You get a fascinating set of answers.
Where are all of the unflinching statements that the women who have abortions have thus committed murder and that they should all be punished as murderers? There were no such answers.
Why all the hedging and squirming? Is it possible that abortion is not really the equivalent of murder? Even in the hearts and minds of those who claim to know for certain that it is “murder”? Assuming that abortion were made illegal, why are so many anti-abortionists so willing to allow a bunch of female murderers walk free without without being penalized under the law? Especially when those who committed the “murder” killed “babies,” allegedly with deliberation and premeditation?
This January 2008 video was produced by At Center Network, “a project of the Northbrook Peace Committee, Inc., a group that works for justice and nonviolent resolution of conflicts.”
Very interesting indeed!
Odd how these people put so much though into their pious judgements & condemnations but not much into how to appropriately (in their eyes) punish the perceived crimes they fight so hard against. I wouldn't have expect squirming from people who are so absolutely "right".
But hey, maybe they suppose God will get around to it eventually. It's certainly within character for a fundy to palm off responsibility in that manner.
In my opinion, there is a rather simple answer to this—it's a form of Pollyanna-ism. These people want abortion to end. They don't want to deal with it at any level. They want everyone to go back to "the way it used to be" when people only had sex inside of marriage and every child was a blessing when it arrived and no one had to deal with a world that looked any different from Leave It To Beaver. They don't want to deal with consequences because in their view there ought not really to be any actions on either side of the issue that result in "consequences" that have to be dealt with. That's why they are equally twisted up about sex education and birth control.
If we punished women who had illegal abortions, then it would still be an issue on the table to be dealt with. We couldn't go back to pretending unwanted pregnancies never happened. And once you put the issue on the table to deal with, then the complex reality of people's lives and choices remains front and center and only the thoughtful will have clarity.
I've been thinking further about this video. I do think that it demonstrates that, in the minds of anti-abortionists, abortion is not quite murder. There are also problems with the pro-choice position too. If abortion is not morally problematic, then why not use abortions as one's main form of birth control? But consider this:
If a man tells you that he's doing family planning by using condoms or a woman says she's doing family planning by using a diaphragm, it doesn't usually raise any eyebrows. But imagine a woman who tells you that in order to do her family planning, she's had 13 abortions over the past 7 years. I think that's disturbing. The fact that it's disturbing to me (and, I suspect, to most other pro-choice people) tells us something interesting. Even for us, having an abortion is not an amoral act.
Therefore, abortion doesn't really seem to be murder (even in the eyes of anti-abortionists) and it's not nothing at all, morally speaking (even in the eyes of pro-choice people).
It is thus the real world practice of abortion, not any abstract top-down theory of abortion, that gave rise to the fuzzy-seeming holding of Roe v Wade.
The so-called "fuzzy seeming holding" of Roe v Wade is a bit more sophisticated than I originally thought. I used to believe that the Supreme Court ducked the main issue—i.e who actually owns your body, you or society? But they didn't do that.
Built in to the three trimester formulary is an implicit nod to what you might call Acknowledgment.
If a woman becomes pregnant accidentally or by misadventure (to use an archaic phrase) and terminates it as soon as she realizes it, that makes a statement of intent. She never intended the pregnancy and in her judgment there is no Acknowledged Empowerment to the fetus. But the longer she waits, the more one can assume that she's torn about it and that perhaps she has granted status to it. By the third trimester, where according to Roe the state has a decided interest, any reasonable person can assume that she has bestowed status on the fetus as a person.
This is a slippery and absolutely improvable concept, but I think it goes to the heart of it. This is why I don't find laws holding people resonsible for the murder of a fetus in the instance of a criminal act–shooting, stabbing, etc—to be inconsistent. It has nothing to do with the fetus and everything to do with the way we grant status.
In simpler terms, when a fetus is new, less than three months old, only the pregnant woman (presumably) has a vested interest in it. By the third trimester, community involvement is a fact. A kind of tacit acknowledgement has occurred that it is a human being.
The Supreme Court attempted to make their language entirely legal and demonstrable in court. Proving state of mind is tricky at the best of times. But I think that assumption is there.
Having known a couple of committed pro-lifers who then went and had abortions, I think the Supreme Court tried to acknowledge the in-built profoundly personal nature of the process. None too clearly as it has turned out.
I think you are all missing a very important subtlety of this video.
I believe that I can clearly see on the faces of some of these women that they themselves have had abortions in the past. It has haunted them and they want to prevent other women from the same hell that they have gone through. This is also why they hesitate to pass judgement.
As you have all heard me say many times, I always seek the "why" of human behavior. Why would these people stand on a street corner all day waving a gruesome sign warning passing motorists who couldn't give a damn? Because God told them to? Maybe that's the answer for some, but not all. The urge to crusade comes from a very personal place.
I feel sure that if the interviewer dug a little deeper he would have found that most of these people know someone close to them or have themselves experienced abortion and feel that they must try to save the rest of the world from it. To me that seems the best explanation for such fervor…and the ambiguity in their answers.
Not to argue your point, Mike—in fact, I'm sure for some of these folks, you're dead right—but that would fail to explain the passionate vehemence of the male protestors, who are often more adamant in their condemnations than women.
Mark: Here's one scenario for the men. I have an friend whose girlfriend aborted his child against his wishes. I could imagine his sadness and frustration being turned into zealotry.
Let me show you some testicle fortitude,
If abortion is illegal, then the punishment should be anything from probation with counseling for both participants to tying her tubes to snipping the 'ol vas deferens.
How chauvinistic of you guys to put it all on the woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Men are largely the problem, because they naturally put child rearing on the mother. Most of the world has bought the lie that you should not wait and just get it over with. Hohummmm….
If families taught (not society) that virginty is pure and the woman is making a "blood covenant" with her spouse.
Then that would mean that this "blood covenant" (breaking the hymen)would be put ahead than giving into the strong uncontrollable urge that men put over women.
Mike,
I don't doubt that can be the case, but—and here's where we need to do some serious, serious reassessing about all this—it was still her body that would be the incubator and she would likely have been the primary care giver. Traditionally, it's the woman who gives up the most. I know that's changing, but it hasn't yet.
So while intellectually I can understand that, personally I can't help but think that the man gets to have a great time and then wait while the woman does all the work so he can be a dad. Maybe that's cold, but it's one reason I believe men ought to have no opinion about it—men (with the rare exception of functional hermaphrodites, and let's face it, they aren't representative of pro-lifers, at least not biologically) don't ever have to deal with becoming pregnant.
In my opinion, this is the last gasp of traditional male power over women. Does that give them an emotional stake? You betcha.
Here's my explanation for the amazing level of non-thought displayed in those interviews: the protesters are merely parroting what they have been programmed to parrot, and they don't think beyond what they are told to think. Obviously, they haven't been programmed to answer any questions beyond those that their church wants them to answer, they can't reply.
BTW, most (state) laws that make abortion illegal impose punishment on the doctor who performs the abortion, not on the woman who has it done.
Rabel writes:—"If families taught (not society) that virginity is pure and the woman is making a “blood covenant” with her spouse.
Then that would mean that this “blood covenant” (breaking the hymen)would be put ahead than giving into the strong uncontrollable urge that men put over women."
That's great as one option. But what about those of us (male AND female) who don't want to live that way?
Blood covenant….sounds like something that goes hand in hand with other enlightened concepts, like…honor killing.
Mark,
Is it not hypocritcal and judgmental to say in your earlier comment,"These people want abortion to end. They don’t want to deal with it at any level… They don’t want to deal with consequences because in their view there ought not really to be any actions on either side of the issue that result in “consequences” that have to be dealt with.
First of all, they do not want their dollars(meaning money they earned, not given) going to Planned Parenthood internationally.
Second, maybe the freedom of religion protects one's beliefs under the Constituion that killing a fetus is morally wrong.
Third, there are many Christian and Jewish groups who support organizations (non-tax dollars)to give women psychiatric, ultrasounds, adoptive parents, interpersonal help for woman at a crossroads, such as killing a baby.
So, you lose much credibility saying they do not want to deal with this issue. To put religious people in a box and say how judgemental they are…and expect them to condemn or punish a person is pure secular santimony on your part. Hey sport, what have you done to help, other than your preciuos tax dollars?
Why should we give my money to a failing government, and pay for thousands of abortions people do not agree with.
Mark, give us an alerternative or an original idea to punish a person under the law. That means the MAN and woman.
People need to own up to their mistakes and live with it(live and let live). Everyone wants a damn bailout! Bet you're happy Obama's mother didn't bailout too soon.
Punishment: Snip and tie, let the gene pool die.
Rabel.
Rabel writes:—"Mark, give us an alerternative or an original idea to punish a person under the law. That means the MAN and woman."
Why would I do that? I don't believe it should be a punishable act.
The hypocrisy is apparent on the part of those people who state unequivocally that abortion should be ILLEGAL and then refuse to come to grips with the fact that things which are illegal tend to be punished. That's why I said what I said—that they aren't interested in that because all they want is for the whole thing to go away, because if you bring punishment into it then it never goes away. It is always open to discussion then.
Wow. Nice way to forgive, Rabel. So if a condom breaks, or antibiotics interfere with your birth control pill, or your dad rapes you, you're forbidden to ever have children after that? Harsh.
The tax dollars argument isn't an issue here, either. If we were all able to pick and choose what our taxes supported, most of what they'd be supporting is paper pushing. I don't like my taxes going to make high fructose corn syrup and ethanol, or pork projects in places I'll never see, or corporate welfare, or faith-based initiatives, or weaponry that ends up rusting away in the desert. My opposition to those things, though, has nothing to do with an actual dollar figure I can account for. Money that goes towards Planned Parenthood also supports parenting education, STD prevention and treatment programs, infant care programs, general gynecological care for poor women, and many other worthy programs that have nothing to do with abortion or even birth control. The kind of legislation that would winnow out only the offensive parts of the spending would cost more than it would save, and if it were eliminated, abortion foes might see a few cents’ tax savings over a span of decades. This is just a knee-jerk response, with little or no actual research behind it.
The question is, what should be done to a woman who has an abortion if abortion became illegal, and the single, all-encompassing answers you’ve posited so far are no better than the “ums” and “uhs” or non-answers we heard from the people in this video. Will the punishment of death or permanent injury from a poorly-done abortion be enough, or will women who survive face further sentencing? Will a woman who has an abortion because she will die from pregnancy or birth face the same penalty as a teenage girl who believed her boyfriend when he promised her he’d love her forever (but left when he told her the news)? Will the woman who aborts because she’s found out she has cancer, or whose husband has left her, or who has just discovered the fetus has the same genetic defect that killed her other two children, face jail or mandatory sterilization as well? Making abortion illegal will not make it unnecessary in these and many other circumstances, so that is why it is so important to make its opponents think about this kind of thing. If they haven’t, then they don’t know enough about the issue to give weight to their opinions.
Rabel proposes punishing both the MAN and the woman. The problem with that is that the man has no say in whether or not an abortion occurs; therefore, there is no rational basis for punishing the man.
Grumpy,
Rabel's way ahead of the curve on that. He wants to punish the man and the woman for fucking. Pregnancy is the dead giveaway that they've been doing just that. Time then to bring out the knives.
Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!!!!
There are often unconsidered facts concerning any birth that need to be simply accepted. Any birth would help make both irresponsible fathers and mothers, couples, extended families and society at large more accountable for their sexual activities. This in itself is a deterrent and a punishment for the individuals who would rather not have it known that they were the parent, or that they somehow helped to promulgate a worldview of irresponsible sexual activity.
We have somehow concluded that since its sometimes hard to tell who is more to blame for an unplanned or undesired pregnancy that no one should be held responsible. You can't always insist that people talk about how the pregnancy came to be, but with modern paternity testing cases are fairly easy to prove.
The punishment of social stigma is not a deterrent to many immoral activities any more, so probably the only utilitarian punishment that would work would need to be one that insists that both the DNA verified father and mother be:
1) required to attend birth control classes by such and such a date.
2) required as fertile males and females to carry mandatory no-fault paternity and maternity health insurance coverage from birth on until certified sterility.
3) required to make their paternity and maternity health insurance liable for potentially all the birth expenses, even retroactively after a birth. This would also apply to the parents of minors without their own health insurance. Health insurance groups could then charge a specific premium for various risk groups and repeat offenders.
4) require that repeat offenders that lose their paternity or maternity health insurance coverage be subject to forced birth control measures.
5) require repeat male and female offenders be subject to legal fines to recoup the expenses of health insurance companies as court actions verify issues of paternity.
6) require that all full legal birth records contain DNA verification of biological ancestry. If this is undeterminable at the time of birth, it should be stated as such and attempts to complete this information should be made or the child immediately be offerd up for adoption.
7) require that biological fathers be offered the same rights of raising a child as a biological mother.
These are a few reasonable matters for consideration
You know, Karl…I might quibble with a point or two, but that's not a bad set of proposals.
I would add mandatory sex and sexuality classes from about fourth grade on, as is done in the EU. No opting out. Take the attitude that, as far as this goes, your body is a machine and you are the licensed operator. You need to know how it works and why. Leaving everything up to chance the way too many folks do is just crazy.
They're not thinking this through at all. Especially that woman at the end. So many people say having something legal is sanctioning it. They don't know how the law works. The law is basically a set of instructions for the police, for prison guards, for other members of the criminal justice system on when to order people to do things (like pay a fine or turn yourself in) and at what point it becomes OK to use force to ensure compliance(such as even keeping people in prison). When something is legal that just means the government isn't using force or the threat of force against something. Doing nothing to stop something is not sanctioning anything, and even then things can be done to discourage abortions without making it illegal and when government policy is geared towards that goal it is essentially sanctioning against it. Funding abortion is sanctioning for it though. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion so I oppose funding abortion except in cases of a woman's life or health.
Rabel,
"First of all, they do not want their dollars (meaning money they earned, not given) going to Planned Parenthood internationally."
To make this abundantly clear, the Government spends substantially less money on safe sex education (and most certainly abortions) then it spends on abstinence only education. The Bush administration placed over 270 million dollars into it. So no need to fret. Abortion is drastically underfunded and you should worry more about those million dollar sports stadiums sucking up your money.
Just keeping the facts straight.
The only problem with my arguement is that if not baby (fetus, for all you evolutionist)tissue is not available, then it would be difficult to punish the man.
Prochoice crowd like yourself, always find minute cases where a woman's life is endangered, but according to a most popular doctor(delivered over 1,000 babies), an abortion was never needed in protection of the mother. What about birthing the baby for adoption!!!!
And no Alison, the woman can have all the sex in the world, but she will have no offspring. Remember the question.
Women want a bailout of the responsibilities, with no help from "neutered men" of America…meaning men have given up the fight and responsibilities for what is right and good.
Rabel.
Karl:
How would it do that?
Are you stating that via the existence of a child, the irresponsible sire and dam suddenly become a caring, loving, supportive father and mother? Are you implying that the community will force them to mature? Are you simply stating that the evidence of a birth will prove that someone had irresponsible sex?
In reverse order:
The last (denoting a living human being as a immorality marker for another pair) is reprehensible.
The middle (community enforcement of maturity) requires tools that we've deliberately dismantled because they were repeatedly misused. They worked better for oppression of difference than they did for enhancement of maturity in any case, since all one had to do to remain immature was mouth the platitudes and keep the immaturity in private. With the hypothetical baby.
The first (magical transformation of parents at birth)… All I can say is that I'm a pro-life theist and even I don't believe that much unreality is going to intrude on our shared reality any time soon. I certainly don't want to base laws on the presumption that it will happen every time.
As for the list of requirements, I applaud you. As Mark said, I might tweak and fiddle, but the proposals as a whole were pretty solid. Well done.
Abortion is nothing more than the bailouts on wallstreet. People do not own up and live up to their mistakes and dumb CHOICES.
Maybe, "Mark the Great" and "Grumpy the Intellectual" would agree to pithing the brain thru the orbitals. That's what kind of society we have now, a bunch of drugged zombies doing what makes them feel good.
Why am I singled out for applying a medical solution? Am I too harsh?
Then why does it not seem so harsh to thrash and cut and pith a baby who is viable? Does anyone of you see the brutality of abortion or are your senses and morals medicated beyond reason? Maybe apathy?
How sad you all are. Really.
Rabel.
Rabel,
You want sad and tragic you should read a little history about the back alley butchers and the victims of economics and the law back before the establishment of Planned Parenthood, when it was a felony to even mail INFORMATION about sex and contraception. When you see the lives of women who had no control at all over their situations who, because hubby demanded a little nookie (and could divorce her if she refused) found herself pregnant with number 6 or 7 or 8 and she couldn't feed the ones she already had, they were driven out of desperation to coat hanger abortionists and often died…don't sell us the tragedy of an unformed, personality-less mass of cells until you understand the tragedy of women's history as victim of men's (non) control.
You must ask yourself, if you were a woman, who would you want telling you what you could do with your body.
As far as zombie's go, I've never seen one so virulent as those who are so steeped in fanaticism that they can't see outside their own little ideological box, and are willing to kill anyone who threatens to open that box so they might finally be able to see.